In 1994, the trial of Liebeck v. Mcdonald's P.T.S., Inc., (No. D-202 CV-93-02419, 1995 WL 360309), 79 year old New Mexico woman named Stella Liebeck sues Mcdonald's, Inc after suffering from multiple third degree burns. The injuries that Liebeck indure was an self-inflicted by spilling a cup hot Mcdonald's coffee that was obviously too hot if cause third degree burns. The issue of this case is whether or not Mcdonald's showed any negligence and if so, did it lead to the unfortunate event of Liebeck injuries. Liebeck was seeking compensatory. damages for loss of wages and punitive damages for pain and suffering. To prove her case, Liebeck had to prove that even though she was partially responsibility the defendant; Mcdonalds, Inc gross negligence was cause them to be more responsible. On February 27, 1992, in …show more content…
The witness continues to go on express that Mcdonald's wasn’t planning the temperature anytime soon, while also admitting that the coffee is “not fit for consumption”. N. M. Stat. Ann. § 13-1419 (Unavoidably unsafe products) states “ There are some products which, even when properly prepared and labeled, cannot be made safe for their intended and ordinary use. Because of the nature of ingredients or natural characteristics of the products, use of these products involves substantial risk of injury, and some users will necessarily be harmed. Such products are said to be unavoidably unsafe.” Before Liebeck’s case there were over 700 claims filed against Mcdonald’s and the Mcdonald’s Corp. witness revealed that most those claims were for injuries; including severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs and buttocks; which are some the injuries Stella Liebeck
In the controversial court case, McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall’s verdict gave Congress the implied powers to carry out any laws they deemed to be “necessary and proper” to the state of the Union. In this 1819 court case, the state of Maryland tried to sue James McCulloch, a cashier at the Second Bank of the United States, for opening a branch in Baltimore. McCulloch refused to pay the tax and therefore the issue was brought before the courts; the decision would therefore change the way Americans viewed the Constitution to this day.
“In tort law, the doctrine which holds a defendant guilty of negligence without an actual showing that he or she was negligent. Its use is limited in theory to cases in which the cause of the plaintiff's injury was entirely under the control of the defendant, and the injury presumably could have been caused only by negligence”(Burt, M.A., & Skarin, G.D. (2011). In consideration of this, the defendant argues that the second foundation of this principle should be solely based on common knowledge of the situation. Although, there is a experts testimony tartar is no basis in this case , in the experts testimony or anything else, for indicating that the plaintiffs injury resulted from the negligence of the defendant. The court correctly found the defendant not liable under the Res ipsa
In Reyes v. Missouri Pac. R. CO., the appellant, Joel Reyes, sought rehabilitation from the defendant, Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, after being run over by one of the defendants trains while lying on the tracks. The appellant claims the defendant was negligent due to its inability to see the plaintiff in time to stop the train. The defendant refutes the plaintiffs claim by blaming the plaintiff for contributory negligence because the plaintiff was believed to be drunk on the night in question based off of pass arrest records . In a motion in limine Reyes ask for the exclusion of the evidence presented by the defense. The trial court, however denied the plaintiff’s request and ruled in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff, Reyes,
Matt Theurer was an 18 year old high school senior and a member of the National Guard. He is employed by McDonald's, the defendant. Matt's manager knew Matt had to drive about 20 minutes to and from work. Matt was scheduled to work a shift at McDonald's from 3:30 pm to 7:30 pm on April 4th, 1988 and 5:00 am to 8:21 am on April 5th, 1988. He was also given a voluntary opportunity for a cleanup shift from 12:00 am to 5:00 am on April 5th, 1988 which he accepted. Matt worked all of his assigned hours, including the voluntary shift. After the last shift was complete,
The conviction of guilty offenders when adhering to the guidelines of the NSW criminal trial process is not difficult based on the presumption of innocence. However, due to features of the criminal trial process, established by the adversarial system of trial, cases can often involve copious amounts of time and money, particularly evident in the case of R vs Rogerson and McNamara where factors such as time and money are demonstrated to be in excess. In addition, characteristics of the adversarial system such as plea bargaining has the power to hinder convictions due to the accused having the authority to hire experienced and expensive lawyers to argue their case, hence maintaining their innocence.
How was McDonald’s supposed to know that Stella would spill the coffee on herself? Coffee is meant to be served hot, just as blades are meant to be sharp. Stella suing for being burned by coffee is the same principal as a person suing a knife company after being cut by one of their products. The world is a dangerous place; many things around us have the capability to cause damage. Corporations should not be held responsible for any damage sustained after using their product improperly. McDonald’s could not have prevented Stella spilling the coffee on herself.
The movie “A Civil Action” released on January 8, 1999 provides viewers with an extraordinary story of the nightmare that occurred in Woburn Massachusetts in the late 1970’s. The people of this small town at the time had no idea what was going on until there were various cases of Leukemia in small children that ultimately resulted in the early passing of them. The people eventually had gone to find out that the drinking water in this small town was contaminated and there were many women that stepped in to get answers. This movie is a tremendously jaw dropping, eye opening account of a heartbreaking true story incident. There are various elements of negligence in this movie including, duty, legal cause, proximate cause and damages.
In the case of Kolchek suing to recover for Litisha’s injuries, she can sure under the negligence liability. Every product should be fully tested in every way possible to see if the product functions correctly and will it injure individuals. There should not have been a whole that is not covered. Like stated in our book The Legal Environment of Business, “if a manufacture fails to exercise “due care” to make a product safe, a person who is injured by the product may sue the manufacture for negligence”. Kolchek could sue the manufacture. In this case which is Great Lakes spa. Porter was just a company that was selling the product. Great Lakes spa should have taken the initiative to examine their products throughly before putting it out on the make for individuals to buy. Like in our book The Legal Environment of Business stated, “A manufacture, seller, or lesser is liable for failure to exercise due care to any person who sustains an injury proximately caused by a negligently made (defective) product.”
When a collection of people with common ideals and values congregate into a group for the means of political gain, they become a much greater presence than if they remained individuals. Whether through singular interest groups or through national political parties, they acquire the power to influence change in the political system, determined to see their viewpoints prevail. This practice was apparent at the time of McDonald v. Chicago. In the time period before the McDonald v. Chicago ruling, numerous people, either through interest groups or political parties, sought the influence the court’s decision and ensure that their viewpoints towards the matter of firearms predominated in the court of law.
Most people will not recognize the name Stella Liebeck but say the words “hot coffee lawsuit” and recognition will be instant. The story is almost so well known that it has almost passed into the realm of urban legend or myth. And in the broad strokes it has become a bit of a myth. An old woman drives through a McDonald’s drive through, orders a cup of coffee and then promptly and recklessly spills the beverage all over her legs. Then in search of an easy payday she sues the restaurant for millions of dollars, ultimately walking away a millionaire with no more damage than a ruined pair of sweatpants. The story has been held up as a parable for what is wrong with America today. The well-worn story can be held up to serve as a totem pole for any number of issues. People don’t want to work for money anymore, just look at that hot coffee lady. People don’t want to take responsibility for their actions, just look at that hot coffee lady. People are idiots, look at that coffee lady. As it turns out, the “coffee lady” is a good story for examining the world we live in today, but not for the reasons that might be expected.
On the 1st of October in the year 2017, the defendant, in this case, the supermarket was found liable for the case Susan injury in the supermarket's premises. The hip injury on Susan’s hip which was a result of the slipping over a squashed banana. The presence of the squashed banana in the premises was an outright sign of negligence and recklessness by the supermarket's staff. (Damage law)
A series of events unfolded when George, running late for class, parked his car on a steep section on Arbutus drive and failed to remember to set the parking brake. The outcome of not remembering to set the parking brake caused many issues resulting in scrapping a Prius, breaking through fencing, people on the train sustaining injuries, and finally a truck that jack-knifed and caused a 42-car pileup. Could the parties that were injured, from George’s actions, be recovered from under the negligence theory? To understand if George is negligent, it is best to look at the legal issue, the required elements of negligence, the definition and explanation of each element of the case, and finally to draw a conclusion to determine if George is negligent.
The tort involved in this case is that of negligence, which is defined as the breach of an individual’s duty to take reasonable care in situations where damage has occurred to another person or organisation (Legal Services Commission, 2013).
Negligence, as defined in Pearson’s Business Law in Canada, is an unintentional careless act or omission that causes injury to another. Negligence consists of four parts, of which the plaintiff has to prove to be able to have a successful lawsuit and potentially obtain compensation. First there is a duty of care: Who is one responsible for? Secondly there is breach of standard of care: What did the defendant do that was careless? Thirdly there is causation: Did the alleged careless act actually cause the harm? Fourthly there is damage: Did the plaintiff suffer a compensable type of harm as a result of the alleged negligent act? Therefore, the cause of action for Helen Happy’s lawsuit will be negligence, and she will be suing the warden of the Peace River Correctional Centre, attributable to vicarious liability. As well as, there will be a partial defense (shared blame) between the warden and the two employees, Ike Inkster and Melvin Melrose; whom where driving the standard Correction’s van.
The Donoghue V. Stevenson Case 1932 was about the violation of a consumer’s right to safe consumption of a product. Mrs. Donoghue the plaintiff was bought for a drink (Ginger Beer) by a friend in a cafe store. In the process of consuming the drink, a decomposing snail was discovered after it floated from the opaque bottle. The plaintiff had already consumed the drink and was in shock to discover the snail. Mrs. Donoghue was later diagnosed with shock and gastroenteritis. She later sued the manufacturer, Mr. Stevenson, seeking fiscal compensation for the damages (Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932]).